I looked at the paper you referenced and was not impressed. In it they state:

> Until our hypothesis of Immune Deficiency in Wildlife can be disproved, we believe that all the Environmental Protection Agencies should suspend the neonicotinoid insecticides.

This is not how science works. The null hypothesis is the default. One cannot simply state that "neonics harm bees" and claim that it is a valid hypothesis until proven otherwise. It's like saying that the moon is sending signals to the White House, you prove it isn't so.

The whole principal of science is that if you make a statement where X causes Y, *you* have to make a good case for it. Ultimately, it may not be provable, as Randy stated, but you have to put together a convincing argument. But, to make a case and then declare that it is up to us to show you are wrong, is pretentious, lazy, and absurd.

PLB

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm